Skip to comments.
South Dakota Voters to Decide Fate of Abortion Ban
Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^
| 19 June 2006
| Chet Brokaw, Associated Press
Posted on 06/19/2006 2:34:55 PM PDT by Publius
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
1
posted on
06/19/2006 2:34:59 PM PDT
by
Publius
To: Publius
Well that will be good for turning out the church ladies. Any close races in SD?
2
posted on
06/19/2006 2:35:58 PM PDT
by
ElkGroveDan
(California bashers will be called out)
To: Publius
Why do I somehow doubt that if the voters do support the ban, that this will somehow bring closure to the matter.
3
posted on
06/19/2006 2:37:26 PM PDT
by
ECM
(Government is a make-work program for lawyers.)
To: Publius
asking voters if the law should go into effect as plannedI thought it already went into effect the first of June.
4
posted on
06/19/2006 2:38:36 PM PDT
by
Tim Long
(I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)
To: Publius
My guess would be that the liberals should want to lose this in SDakota so they can appeal it. If they'll win one of these with a more conservative court, it might be one that doesn't include exceptions for rape and incest.
5
posted on
06/19/2006 2:38:55 PM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It. Supporting our Troops Means Praying for them to Win!)
To: Publius
Wonder if we can have the same vote on CFR?
The rabid Hypocrisy on the Left is stunning. Back when it was Term Limits all the Leftists ran around screaming "You don't need to vote on Term Limits, the people can vote them out at the next election." Touch their sacrament Abortion and LOOK OUT, they demand the right to vote on it.
Be interesting to watch how this turns out. I suspect the Left is going to find out how weak support for some of their dogma really is.
6
posted on
06/19/2006 2:39:37 PM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(The Democrat Party! For people who prefer slogans over solutions!)
To: ElkGroveDan
"Secretary of State Chris Nelson said Monday that the law's opponents had collected enough signatures to put a question on the November 7 ballot asking voters if the law should go into effect as planned or be dumped."
So if the law goes into effect, will the opponents then get to collect signatures to go on the next ballot that says, "are you sure?"
7
posted on
06/19/2006 2:49:11 PM PDT
by
EQAndyBuzz
(Democrats - The reason we need term limits)
To: Publius
Roe should be found unconstitutional, and the issue put to the voters of every state. Then hopefully get this issue out of politics once and for all.
8
posted on
06/19/2006 2:51:54 PM PDT
by
tkathy
(The "can do" party can fix anything. The "do-nothing" party always makes things worse.)
To: Publius
This is not going to work even if passed. You need five votes to overturn. You
might have three for overturn--Thomas, Scalia and Alito. You will have Roberts only if you are tightening
Roe, not overturning it. Then you need that fifth judge for any tightening and the only one who might move over is Kennedy--and he won't go for a dramatic tightening. So for an overturn, you would be lucky to get a 3-6 vote. The end result will be a strengthening of
Roe with one more major precedent.
Brown vs. Board of Education was overturned based on a long series of steps before it; that is the best you can hope for here.
9
posted on
06/19/2006 3:40:59 PM PDT
by
mcvey
(Fight on. Do not give up. Ally with those you must. Defeat those you can. And fight on whatever.)
To: mcvey
Brown v. Topeka Board of Education was never overturned. It's still the law of the land.
10
posted on
06/19/2006 3:42:34 PM PDT
by
Publius
To: Publius
Publius:
My apologies. I can only say that I had a brain cancellation and wrote down Brown instead of Plessy.
mea culpa
McVey
11
posted on
06/19/2006 4:27:20 PM PDT
by
mcvey
(Fight on. Do not give up. Ally with those you must. Defeat those you can. And fight on whatever.)
To: mcvey
Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, but not in a long series of steps. The number of steps was remarkably short, beginning with a court decision by a federal judge in South Carolina in 1947.
12
posted on
06/19/2006 4:31:42 PM PDT
by
Publius
To: ElkGroveDan
"Well that will be good for turning out the church ladies. Any close races in SD?"
Yes, at least one. Pro-abortion liberal Democrat Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth is being challenged by a pro-life conservative Republican Native American from Shannon County named Bruce Whalen. See
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1641914/posts?page=9#9 The abortion issue could deliver the state's lone House seat to the GOP.
13
posted on
06/19/2006 5:33:55 PM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
To: Publius
This is the first time liberals have asked voters if they want abortion banned. I didn't think they had the guts. Now let's see them make a rational case to South Dakota voters for abortion on demand.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
14
posted on
06/19/2006 6:26:23 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: MNJohnnie
No, they really don't want a vote a vote on it. Presumably the South Dakota law is reflective of state public opinion or it wouldn't have passed the Legislature. Anyway, their hand got forced and they would like the courts to ignore the will of the people. So they still have that escape hatch if this referendum goes against them. I don't see them agreeing to any limits on abortion, period. That's who liberals are.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
15
posted on
06/19/2006 6:29:49 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Publius
South Dakota threw out a few weeks ago the four lawmakers that voted against the ban in the primaries.
It didn't get the type or press play the Penn revolt in the primaries did, probably because peole are scared to death of the issue among politicians and press, but it was big news.
Somehow, I doubt South Dakota residents will be siding with Planned Parenthood this fall.
16
posted on
06/19/2006 6:56:34 PM PDT
by
Soul Seeker
(Deport the United States Senate)
To: Tim Long
It was going to be the first of July; that will not be enacted now that it's on the November ballot.
To: Publius; Saint Athanasius
This is quite an extraordinary development. I would have expected some federal judge to throw the law out and that would have been end of story. And I'm really surprised the libs would want to put this on the ballot in the Fall. First of all, it will show how many people truly are pro-life, and secondly, it will help the GOP in November. This has got to be bad news for Herseth!
I wonder how widespread support for this petition drive was among the rats and leftists? Or do they actually think the majority of people, even in a good Red state like SD, are a bunch of twisted pro-aborts?
Anyway, I will be following this story with great interest. I don't know of any situation in the past where the fundamental question of abortion has been placed on a ballot.
To: Publius
Mark this one down on your calendars, for I am going to make a prediction:
On November 7, this measure will be approved by the voters, and not by a small margin.
Within 24-48 hours, the pro-abortion crowd will give the voters the finger by challenging it in court. And an activist judge will comply by declaring it "unconstitutional."
19
posted on
06/22/2006 8:46:41 AM PDT
by
Houmatt
(Durka Durka Mohammad Jihad!)
To: tkathy
"Roe should be found unconstitutional, and the issue put to the voters of every state. Then hopefully get this issue out of politics once and for all."
Here, here! Definatly a state level issue.
20
posted on
07/31/2006 5:57:57 PM PDT
by
Bogtrotter52
(Singin' the blues with a smarmy Irish smile)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson